Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court

"A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a litigant cannot take contradictory stands in the same case to approbate and reprobate on the same facts, emphasizing that admissions made in pleadings are binding.

A bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed that unequivocal admissions in written statements or plaints amount to substantive evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and can be acted upon by courts under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The dispute arose from a complex family partition matter involving multiple properties and connected suits. In the primary suit for partition, certain family members, specifically the second defendant, had explicitly admitted in their written statements that specific properties were joint family properties. However, during the trial and subsequent appeal, the defendant attempted to change his stance, claiming the properties were self-acquired or purchased by his maternal grandfather. The trial court had largely ignored these initial admissions, prompting the present appeals before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether a party is estopped from taking contradictory pleas regarding the nature of suit properties after making clear admissions in their pleadings. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of such admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and the Indian Evidence Act.

Admissions In Pleadings Bind The Maker

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidentiary value of pleadings, noting that a litigant cannot advance arguments contrary to their own plaint or written statement. The bench highlighted that the respondent's initial pleadings and deposition amounted to a formal admission under Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed that once the existence of a joint family and its nucleus are established through such admissions, the burden heavily shifts onto the person asserting that specific properties do not belong to the joint family.

Scope Of Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Relying extensively on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, particularly the decision in Karam Kapahi vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, the bench elaborated on the purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The court noted that the provision is designed to give a plaintiff a right to speedy judgment by getting rid of claims where there is no actual controversy. The bench emphasized that the phrase "admission of fact either in the pleading or otherwise" gives the rule a wide sweep, empowering judges to use it to further the ends of justice.

"The provision under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is enabling, discretionary and permissive and is neither mandatory nor is it peremptory since the word 'may' has been used. Thus in a given situation, as in the instant case, the said provision can be applied in rendering the judgment."

Rule Against Approbate And Reprobate

The bench took strong exception to the respondent's attempt to shift his stance during the proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd., the court reiterated that litigation is not a game of chess. The bench firmly held that while a litigant might take different stands in entirely different proceedings at different times, they are strictly prohibited from taking mutually destructive pleas within the same case. Such conduct, the court noted, violates the fundamental rule against approbating and reprobating.

Evidentiary Value Of Depositions On Oath

The court further observed that an admission is a conscious and deliberate act, constituting the best evidence the opposite party can rely upon. The bench pointed out that a person might attempt to disown their pleadings, but they cannot casually brush aside statements made on oath before the court in their cross-examination. The judges found it unacceptable that the trial court lost sight of the clear admissions made by the defendant in his written statement and cross-examination.

Applying these principles, the High Court set aside the trial court's findings which had erroneously ignored the binding admissions on record. The bench ruled that the properties in question were indeed joint family properties liable for partition, effectively holding the parties bound to their initial pleadings and preventing them from benefiting from inconsistent, shifting stands.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026